It is also entitled "What a Simple Psychological Test Reveals About Climate Change" - If everyone’s success depended on it, would you share—or be selfish?

The article describes some experiments that the writer did with his University psychology classes, concerned with selfishness and altruism.

Some thoughts that came to me after reading it: is it not odd that the possibility of a fundamental change in human consciousness is not even mentioned - and is this not always the case?

Or is it? Rationally, it is seen that if people were LESS selfish, we would be be better off. But this seems to be presented as a choice the self might take. And I suppose that might happen - but would anything have changed, fundamentally? One might be less selfish, on the surface, in one area, but the basically the self continues.

Can the self "give itself up"? Die to itself without an effort, without struggle?

Clive Elwell wrote:Can the self "give itself up"? Die to itself without an effort, without struggle?

When I see that I am the 'self' and realize that there is nothing with myself that I can do because I am that 'myself'.... That I am what I am talking about "giving up", then maybe there can be the "attention" that is discussed in John R.'s post yesterday (3rd conversation) . Very interesting.

Dan McDermott wrote:When I see that I am the 'self' and realize that there is nothing with myself that I can do because I am that 'myself'.... That I am what I am talking about "giving up", then maybe there can be the "attention" that is discussed in John R.'s post yesterday (3rd conversation) . Very interesting.

I think I understand what is being said here, and resonate with it, but I would just like to check by putting it in “my own words”. But this is not easy, because we are trying to get at something incredibly dynamic. And there is no describer standing outside of what is being described.

A thought (2) arises in the mind. That thought is actually a reaction, perhaps a reaction to the previous thought (1), or a reaction to a stimulus, perhaps a perception by one of the senses. But the process is further complicated by the fact that this thought is under the guise of a thinker.

Under that guise, there are all sorts of assumptions at work. For example, the guise may take the form of ‘the controller’, based on the assumption that it can control, or at least influence, another thought, even influence the whole mind.

What I haven’t said yet is that this thought, this reaction, this so-called controller, is the me. It is what the mind has learnt to associate with the idea of a me.

And then a third thought (3), still under the guise of the thinker, arises as a reaction to the second thought (2). And so on, (40, (5), …… (n).

So there is an implication that this me is separate from what it is trying to control, trying to act upon. That is the assumption under which it arises. And this is what is going on in 7+ million brains throughout the day.

But it is actually false. Seen from a ‘different perspective’, all that is happening is a series of thoughts are arising in the mind. The realisation of this falseness certainly is "very interesting". It brings about fundamental change in the mind.

Is this a reasonable description of what you, and John, are saying, Dan? Or does anyone else have a comment?

Clive Elwell wrote:But it is actually false. Seen from a ‘different perspective’, all that is happening is a series of thoughts are arising in the mind.

Yes I think the whole thing is right here...that I do not see that I can do nothing. Once that it seen, everything changes. The conflict that is the result of myself against myself can stop: I feel something, anger,i.e. and then it is recognized as having happened before and thought arises to suppress, rationalize it etc....But the anger is me, as is the thought that separates and tries to manage it. This wastes energy, this conflict, this is inattention.

Dan McDermott wrote:Yes I think the whole thing is right here...that I do not see that I can do nothing. Once that it seen, everything changes. The conflict that is the result of myself against myself can stop: I feel something, anger,i.e. and then it is recognized as having happened before and thought arises to suppress, rationalize it etc....But the anger is me, as is the thought that separates and tries to manage it. This wastes energy, this conflict, this is inattention.

I would add another aspect of this discovery, that what was assumed to be permanent keeps turning out to be impermanent.

Ok, I think we are talking about the same movement, that thought as the me keeps trying to act so as to “do something about” a problem the mind has, not realising, as it arises, that it IS the problem.

( I will add that it might be reasonable, appropriate, to try to do something about a problem that is not directly caused by the mind, a practical problem).

Now I am going to ask a question that may well be a wrong question, a wrong step, but may reveal something. Why does this process continue? You and I, and no doubt others, say that we have seen this contradiction in the mind, that we understand the falseness of what is happening. But I may venture to say, the process continues. It may not get very far, it is seen for what it is and so ends, but it still keeps arising. Tom might well say at this point, as he has said before, “how can we say it ends if it keeps returning” ( excuse me for putting words in your mouth, Tom). Perhaps it might be better to say, instead of “the process ends”, the process ceases to continue, but this may just be cosmetic.

Here perhaps is an answer, from the "Daily Meditations" that I mentioned recently:

Your mind is conditioned right through; there is no part of you which is unconditioned. That is a fact, whether you like it or not. You may say is a part of you – the watcher, the super-soul, the Atma – which is not conditioned; but because you think about it, it is within the field of thought, therefore it is conditioned. You can invent lots of theories about it, but the fact is that your mind is conditioned right through, the conscious as well as the unconscious, and any effort it makes to free itself is also conditioned. So what is the mind to do? Or rather, what is the state of the mind when it knows that it is conditioned and realizes thatany effort it makes to uncondition itself is still conditioned? Now, when you say, "I know I am conditioned," do you really know it, or is that merely a verbal statement? Do you know it with the same potency with which you see a cobra? When you see a snake and know it to be a cobra, there is immediate, unpremeditated action; and when you say, "I know I am conditioned," has it the same vital significance as your perception of the cobra? Or is it merely a superficial acknowledgment of the fact, and not the realization of the fact? When I realize the fact that I am conditioned, there is immediate action. I don't have to make an effort to uncondition myself. The very fact that I am conditioned, and the realization of that fact, brings an immediate clarification. The difficulty lies in not realizing it in the sense of understanding all its implications, seeing that all thought, however subtle, however cunning, however sophisticated or philosophical, is conditioned.

Clive Elwell wrote:Why does this process continue? You and I, and no doubt others, say that we have seen this contradiction in the mind, that we understand the falseness of what is happening. But I may venture to say, the process continues. It may not get very far, it is seen for what it is and so ends, but it still keeps arising. Tom might well say at this point, as he has said before, “how can we say it ends if it keeps returning” ( excuse me for putting words in your mouth, Tom). Perhaps it might be better to say, instead of “the process ends”, the process ceases to continue, but this may just be cosmetic.

I happened to come across the QOTD today and someone asks K about this issue, so here goes:

Oslo, Norway | Talk in University Hall, Oslo, September 5, 1933

Questioner: Is your realization of truth permanent and present all the time, or are there dark times when you again face the bondage of fear and desire?

Krishnamurti: The bondage of fear exists as long as there remains the limitation of consciousness that you call the 'I'. When you become rich within yourself, then you will no longer feel want. It is in this continual battle of want, in this seeking of advantage from circumstances, that fear and darkness exist. I think I am free from that. How can you know it? You can't. I might be deceiving you; so do not bother about it. But I have this to say: One can live effortlessly, in a way that cannot be arrived at through effort; one can live without this incessant struggle for spiritual achievement; one can live harmoniously, completely, in action - not in theory, but in daily life, in daily contact with human beings. I say that there is a way to free the mind from all suffering, a way to live completely, wholly, eternally. But to do that, one must be completely open towards life; one must allow no shelter or reserve to remain in which mind can dwell, to which heart can withdraw in times of conflict.

So perhaps conflict may in fact return, but it's not resisted or escaped from. At times K did speak of a total mutation of the brain ...a total transformation, but for most of us what that is all about is only speculation.

Tom Paine wrote, quoting K:I say that there is a way to free the mind from all suffering, a way to live completely, wholly, eternally.

Yes, a powerful quote. But does it infer a "permanent" change? I think K used the word "eternal" as meaning "without time", not living in time at all - not it the sense of "lasting forever".

Now another quote comes to mind that seems to complicate things - "Deterioration is always just one step behind one, including for me".

If there has been a mutation of the brain cells, what does deterioration mean? That the brain cells start to regress into their old configuration?

Perhaps rather than trying to understand K’s mind/brain, which may be impossible for “the old brain”, or just useless speculation, we need to examine what is for ourselves, (without any comparison) for the mind which manifests in us, in this stream that we (at least myself) have talked so much about. Not that we should not inquire into what it means to step out of that stream.

Dan McDermott wrote:Yes I think the whole thing is right here...that I do not see that I can do nothing. Once that it seen, everything changes. The conflict that is the result of myself against myself can stop: I feel something, anger,i.e. and then it is recognized as having happened before and thought arises to suppress, rationalize it etc....But the anger is me, as is the thought that separates and tries to manage it. This wastes energy, this conflict, this is inattention.

So when you say this conflict can stop, has it for you, Dan?

This is a crucial thing, isn’t it? The separation, division, that we are talking about – which is basically into thinker and thought, and all the other descriptions K has used – seems to be the root of all conflict. Firstly in the human mind, and then by extension into the whole of society.

Obviously I can do nothing about this division, since the essence of the division IS trying to do something about consciousness, the mind. So, it seems to me, the problem points to the necessity of choiceless awareness (and I don't mean that I should become aware).

It is my observation that this awareness is lacking at the point of separation of thought into thinker and thought. Awareness may come in a moment later, but it is too late to illuminate the actual separation. And the separation can only occur in darkness. What do you say to this, Dan? Or anyone, of course. Am I saying the same as you, when you say:

Clive Elwell wrote:It is my observation that this awareness is lacking at the point of separation of thought into thinker and thought. Awareness may come in a moment later, but it is too late to illuminate the actual separation.

So you want to do what? "Illuminate the actual separation"? Why not just see what you do and how you act? As you say "the problem points to choiceless awareness." The questioner is you and the solver is you.

So you want to do what? "Illuminate the actual separation"? Why not just see what you do and how you act? As you say "the problem points to choiceless awareness." The questioner is you and the solver is you

I don’t find this an issue of “what I want to do”. Any wanting that might come is rather trivial, is it not?I am not in charge of this mess, and as we have frequently have discussed on the forum, “I” am confusion, ignorance, and so cannot act to clear up confusion and ignorance.

But I observe, or it is observed, that this thinker, the self, as it is born in the mind in reaction, is born in darkness. In a lack of awareness. You may not agree, and please discuss, but is this seeing of the darkness not a “just seeing what I do and how I act”. Is this not “what is”?

In investigating awareness, do we not naturally come to the issue of unawareness? And I am not talking about trying to turn unawareness into awareness. But unawareness of the birth of the self may be the crucial issue. What do you say?

Clive Elwell wrote:But unawareness of the birth of the self may be the crucial issue. What do you say?

It may be. I actually wanted to change my last post but it seems this website was down for a few days. Isn't the awareness of the arising of conflict in oneself, the arising or birth or presence of the 'self'? In the 'darkness', the conflict is treated one way, rejected, surpressed, rationalized, etc.but the 'cause' is not seen. With 'intelligence' (?) it can be understood that what is happening, anger, jealousy, loneliness etc.is an inevitable result of one's 'attachments' and in a way must cause conflict. As in "when it rains, the streets get wet." Intelligence can join the effect to the cause and understand that if the cause is not seen (as it isn't in "darkness" or inattention), the conflict, suffering, fear must continue?

Dan McDermott wrote:Isn't the awareness of the arising of conflict in oneself, the arising or birth or presence of the 'self'?

Dan, Clive,

I was just about to say something similar to this. What IS the birth of self if not the birth of time, fear, anger, confusion, depression, greed, desire, will, effort, intention, and so on?

Dan McDermott wrote:With 'intelligence' (?) it can be understood that what is happening, anger, jealousy, loneliness etc.is an inevitable result of one's 'attachments'

To be clear, I take you to mean that the understanding is non-verbal, that it can only operate through awareness or observation, from outside the field of conflict. It’s a bit like looking through a microscope and seeing that Microbe A is present in every case where Disease A manifests, and observing that eliminating Microbe A cures Disease A. The observation itself is free of the disease. Is that it?

Although there might be verbalization in exploring the meaning of understanding, conflict, disease, etc., understanding and awareness are not from the morass of the field of verbalization.

Dan McDermott wrote:With 'intelligence' (?) it can be understood that what is happening, anger, jealousy, loneliness etc.is an inevitable result of one's 'attachments' and in a way must cause conflict. As in "when it rains, the streets get wet."

Interesting....the quoting function is now working on my iPad.....bravo! It remains to be seen if multiple quoting will work. As of a few days ago neither would work with the Apple iOS. Yes, I’m angry or despondent if my wife leaves me because I’m attached to her...all the memories. So attachment is at the root of my suffering as the Buddha said? But, if attachment is the cause, what is the cause of attachment? Why do I get attached in the first place....to people...ideas...experiences...fulfillment’s...goals...pleasures? Attachment is certainly fundamental to ‘me’/self. And to consciousness as we know it. Just an aside....I saw on Facebook today that some fundamentalist Christian group is producing a film based upon the belief that Donald Trump was sent by God to save our nation...the U.S., that is. It amazes me how beliefs like this take hold of seemingly ‘normal’ citizens. Well they fell for Hitler’s promises too. So we can all see where such attachment leads...

Tom Paine wrote:But, if attachment is the cause, what is the cause of attachment? Why do I get attached in the first place....

What comes to mind is that the reason we psychologically attach to whatever is because we don't truly understand 'what' we are. From that ignorance of what we are in essence, flows a desire for security in this what can be, a brutal world. Fear makes me want to latch on to anything, good or bad, in order to have a sense of not being alone. And of course I want to rid myself of the unpleasant attachments but keep the pleasant...so I guess we stay in this 'box' until (or if) it is seen (emotionally?) that there is no security psychologically and that any attachment whatever, is a "tether" which keeps us tied. So the 'logical' question that arises is 'how' do we die to our attachments? And there seems to be no 'how',no effort, no will etc. So... what?

Huguette . wrote:To be clear, I take you to mean that the understanding is non-verbal, that it can only operate through awareness or observation, from outside the field of conflict.

Yes, outside the box of our "messy consciousness"?..Intelligence then is like a light that reveals the situation for what it is. For example, if we are having an argument about something and I say to you, "you're making me mad, don't make me mad..." intelligence operating in that moment can see that nothing 'external' can "make me mad"..the sensation of 'anger' is arising because you have threatened in some way the image I have of myself, you have 'deflated' it with your words or actions and so the 'cause' of this rising anger is my attachment to this image of myself. So the 'fault' is not in you but in the clinging to this illusory 'attachment'. That intelligence or awareness can nip that anger in the bud before it rolls down the customary track leading to who knows what calamity.

As I understand, he’s saying that you are attached because you are afraid of your emptiness. That without your wife or your career...your ambition...you are nothing...zilch. You are only the ambition, the career, the furniture, the Mercedes, the wife or girlfriend. And you are afraid of that void if you lose all you are attached to....afraid of your inner emptiness. But he’s not saying to make that nothing into another ‘me’...another image.

Tom Paine wrote:And you are afraid of that void if you lose all you are attached to....afraid of your inner emptiness. But he’s not saying to make that nothing into another ‘me’...another image.

No I don't think that he is, I think that he is saying something much more radical... that you, me, we, are "nothing".

And to me it follows that only in being 'nothing' psychologically could there be complete 'security'. In other words, the 'you' (or me) that is trying to 'die' to these attachments, to get your house in order, who fears the 'void' etc....actually doesn't exist.

It occurs to me that our language reinforces the idea that there is actually an entity, me, that exists apart. The possessive pronoun for example: 'my' as in 'my' attachments indicating a 'something' , a someone who is apart and separate from the attachment?

Dan McDermott wrote:What comes to mind is that the reason we psychologically attach to whatever is because we don't truly understand 'what' we are. From that ignorance of what we are in essence .........

Dan, so are we "something" or are we "nothing"?

Tom Paine wrote:
What we are is all the attachments, no? And the resulting fear, anger, greed, desire, and other manifestations of ‘me’.

Dan McDermott wrote:
Well K. introduced the idea that (psychologically?) we are "nothing" (not-a-thing), didn't he?

Dan, we have (the mind has) been educated to think - that we are “one thing” and fear, anger, greed, desire, etc., are “another thing”, a thing separate from “me”, a thing upon which “I” can act and which I can control.

It is in THIS sense that we are nothing - in the sense that there is only fear etc.; there is not me AND fear, not 2 but 1. So in this sense, self is no thing, nothing. Is fear etc. “something” or “nothing”?

It does not follow that there is absolutely nothing - no brain, no mind, no fear, no desire, no attachment, no effort, no energy, no intelligence. Just no self. There is no “thing” that self “really” is. That's my understanding.

Mine is that there is this 'box' of consciousness that each of us (humans) 'have' (are). Similar to all other humans but different in personal experiences, memories, tendencies, talents etc but basically the same consciousness and it is a "mess". All 'our' fears, conflicts, desires, aspirations, attachments, beliefs etc. all there in the brain and all "conditioned"...no 'me' apart from it. No 'one' to escape from it. It is what we are. Now it is K. who is saying (as I read it of course) that what freedom from this (the known?) is, is the ending, the dying to, the "stepping out of" this 'consciousness' and then maybe 'something' else is there. But there can be no 'stepping out' without this 'mess' being put in order. No Love while there's hate, conflict, fear, loneliness, confusion, greed, etc. (Thought/self is fear.) Self is a protective mechanism, isn't it?

Dan McDermott wrote:Now it is K. who is saying (as I read it of course) that what freedom from this (the known?) is, is the ending, the dying to, the "stepping out of" this 'consciousness' and then maybe 'something' else is there.

But Dan, K says that self is nothing. And looking into it, it is seen that there is no self separate from the content of consciousness. Seeing it, you say and I say that self is nothing.

K doesn't say that there is "something ese" which is the essence of what we "really" are, of our true self or anything else of that nature. He doesn't dangle the carrot of a better self in front of us. Self-understanding means understanding self as it is actually refelected in action and relationship in this moment, not as we think "true" self will be once we understand, once we step out of the old self. He says that self-understanding "awakens harmonious intelligence". "Harmonious intelligence" is not self, true self or a better self. It IS the ending of self and time, isn't it? The idea of a true self introduces time, doesn't it?

(Quote of the Day - Ojai, California | 2nd Talk in the Oak Grove 12th April, 1936)
Until now it has been said that there is God, that there is truth, that there is something absolute, final, eternal, and on that assertion we have built our thought and emotion, our life, our morality. [...] the mind limits itself, to imitate and copy, thus making itself incapable of adjustment to the movement of life, twisting life to the pattern of an ideal, which only creates further sorrow and confusion.
To understand and awaken this harmonious intelligence, one must begin, not with assumptions and authoritative assertions, but negatively. When the mind is free of these ignorant responses, there is then the deep harmony born of intelligence. Then begins the joy of penetration into reality. No one can tell you of reality, and any description of it must ever be false.

Huguette . wrote:K.-Then begins the joy of penetration into reality. No one can tell you of reality, and any description of it must ever be false.

He has used some "descriptions" of this other (or lack of)'consciousness' when he used the metaphor of a "empty drum" and the "quiet pond", didn't he?

Would you say that what we are in essence is
'energy'? That everything manifest is in essence energy? I believe you are saying Huguette in relation to "nothingness" is that it is just the 'self's way of creating hope, hope of a higher, similar to a belief in a god etc.?

"For energy, the best we can do is say it’s the capacity to cause movement." - C. O'Connell

Yes, it seems logical, sensible, even evident to me that everything is energy. So, whether conditioned or free, whether corrupt or innocent, consciousness is also a manifestation of energy, as I see it.

But in talking about what the self is and what truth is, it is one thing to talk about it where the speaker’s mind is not psychologically fragmented and tormented, and it is a totally different thing to talk about it where the speaker is fragmented, conflicted. The mind which is free talks about freedom out of freedom. The mind which is enslaved by conditioning talks about freedom out of constraint.

Does speculating about the essence of “what I really am”, or accepting it on the authority of someone who “knows” about these matters, contribute to understanding at all?

Huguette . wrote:Does speculating about the essence of “what I really am”, or accepting it on the authority of someone who “knows” about these matters, contribute to understanding at all?

No, it only means falling into a belief...but most people I think already have a 'belief' i.e., when they say "you are what you are, live with it", "You can't change 'human nature'" , "so make the best of it", "you want a utopia, never going to happen"... etc.

Does speculating about the essence of “what I really am”, or accepting it on the authority of someone who “knows” about these matters, contribute to understanding at all?

No, it only means falling into a belief...but most people I think already have a 'belief' i.e., when they say "you are what you are, live with it", "You can't change 'human nature'" , "so make the best of it", "you want a utopia, never going to happen"... etc.

So are we concerned with our beliefs of what we are, or are we actually observing what we are? If K says that he's like the 'empty drum' or the 'still pond'...or that he's absolutely nothing... is that what we are observing in ourselves? Stillness? Nothingness? I think we all can agree that ANY image(even an image of 'emptiness' or 'formlessness') is preventing us from seeing ourselves as we are.

Tom Paine wrote:I think we all can agree that ANY image(even an image of 'emptiness' or 'formlessness') is preventing us from seeing ourselves as we are.

I don't agree...why should the fact that you have an image or belief or hope about who or what you are "prevent" the 'seeing' of that. Doesn't 'choiceless awareness' mean the seeing of whatever is there no matter what it is? And isn't it the 'seeing' (intelligence?) that makes it possible to see through and dissolve what is there?

Dan McDermott wrote:Isn't the awareness of the arising of conflict in oneself, the arising or birth or presence of the 'self'?

K sometimes makes the point that we are only aware when there is conflict, disturbance. But no, I think I have probably got that wrong, he probably says we are only aware of OURSELVES when then there is conflict. Does the self ONLY arise in conflict, in fact? Only arise as a reaction?

Anyway, I would say yes to your question, Dan

Dan McDermott wrote:Intelligence can join the effect to the cause and understand that if the cause is not seen (as it isn't in "darkness" or inattention), the conflict, suffering, fear must continue?

And in this darkness of inattention, thought is not seen for what it is - instead it is mistaken for truth, for some sort of absolute, would you say?

My original question still seems to stand - can there be this qulaity of attention right at the birth of a thought or feeling? Or is this a wrong question?